What happened to Mexico Paying for your stupid wall! HAHAHA

Hey deplorables your felon and chief wants 5 billion of taxpayer money to build his stupid wall. What happened to that big fat lie he told you about Mexico paying for it? You voted for him! Suckers!

Hey deplorables your felon and chief wants 5 billion of taxpayer money to build his stupid wall. What happened to that big fat lie he told you about Mexico paying for it? You voted for him! Suckers! Originally Posted by StandinStraight

Considering these illegals cost the U.S. $54.5 billion per year, that means the U.S. taxpayer will enjoy a windfall savings of $49 billion for the first year and $54.5 billion for every year after that! So, yeah, Mexico, et al, would be paying for the wall.

Considering these illegals cost the U.S. $54.5 billion per year, that means the U.S. taxpayer will enjoy a windfall savings of $49 billion for the first year and $54.5 billion for every year after that! So, yeah, Mexico, et al, would be paying for the wall. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Cheery picked data is what you are dealing in IB.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9f79017bfb84


The NASEM report found that, in the long run, the typical immigrant and that person's descendants will pay about $259,000 more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. First generations tend to be more costly to governments, the report says, in part because of the costs at state and local levels of educating these immigrants' children.

Cheery picked data is what you are dealing in IB.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9f79017bfb84


The NASEM report found that, in the long run, the typical immigrant and that person's descendants will pay about $259,000 more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. First generations tend to be more costly to governments, the report says, in part because of the costs at state and local levels of educating these immigrants' children. Originally Posted by WTF

It's my contention that it is WaPo -- and other lib-retarded jackasses in the lame-stream media -- that are cherry picking data.

A 2011 report by FAIR, undocumented immigrants cost U.S. and state governments $113 billion a year in welfare programs. The report argues that immigrants use more welfare programs than people born in the United States.

Cheery picked data is what you are dealing in IB.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9f79017bfb84


The NASEM report found that, in the long run, the typical immigrant and that person's descendants will pay about $259,000 more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. First generations tend to be more costly to governments, the report says, in part because of the costs at state and local levels of educating these immigrants' children. Originally Posted by WTF

More of the same. Fake news from IB. He doesn't know his stuff. It falls in line with his "truth isn't truth" and "alternative facts" brainwashing. He is like the Manchurian Candidate of Eccie

Kudos to WTF for using Cato Institute analysis to support his position, even if it was regurgitated by the Washington Post.

Just a guess, but the reason in the differences between IB's source and WTF's source may be that the Heritage Foundation assumed illegals use benefits at close to the same levels as citizens and took into account the cost of educating U.S. citizens who are children of illegals. Cato didn't look at illegal immigrants per se, but rather poor non-citizens. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between the picture you get from reading the two articles.

IB, before taking a look at that I was sure illegal immigrants were big net contributors, in terms of taxation versus benefits. I'm not so sure now.

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-I...ive-Households
A complex study from 2012 indicating 51% of illegal immigrants were on some form of welfare - significantly higher than the legal population.

SS is just a DPST

Let's not feed him - just laugh at the delusions. Let him bow to his heroes - Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. Responsible for hundreds of millions of murders.
SS- move to the Worker's Paradise of Venezuela - You would love how yur ideology works.

Maybe we will get lucky and Standing
will be on the other side of the wall.

Considering these illegals cost the U.S. $54.5 billion per year, that means the U.S. taxpayer will enjoy a windfall savings of $49 billion for the first year and $54.5 billion for every year after that! So, yeah, Mexico, et al, would be paying for the wall. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Trump had 2 years of a Republican House and Senate. He promised to repeal Obama Care and Build a wall. He didn't do it. He failed. Even Tucker Carlson said he was a fraud

Trump had 2 years of a Republican House and Senate. He promised to repeal Obama Care and Build a wall. He didn't do it. He failed. Even Tucker Carlson said he was a fraud Originally Posted by themystic

If you knew anything about the Senate -- which they do teach in high school Civics -- you'd know that one needs 60 votes in the Senate to have the fucking Senate. So, your statement is far from honest. And once the wall is built, the American citizen will enjoy a windfall from the money saved by not spending it one illegals.

If you knew anything about the Senate -- which they do teach in high school Civics -- you'd know that one needs 60 votes in the Senate to have the fucking Senate. So, your statement is far from honest. And once the wall is built, the American citizen will enjoy a windfall from the money saved by not spending it one illegals. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You told me after the Blue Wave ass whipping that it didn't matter. All the power was in the Senate. The House didn't mean shit. Trump couldn't get the votes because hes a moronic lawbreaker according to Rex Tillerson

You told me after the Blue Wave ass whipping that it didn't matter. All the power was in the Senate. The House didn't mean shit. Trump couldn't get the votes because hes a moronic lawbreaker according to Rex Tillerson Originally Posted by themystic

Once again you disingenuously misrepresent what was said. What was said is: the 2019 Senate will vote to confirm who ever it is that Trump chooses to replace RBG, and there ain't a damn thing the dim-retard House can do about it. Thank you Harry Reid. The 2019 Senate will vote to confirm who ever it is that Trump nominates to be Ambassador to the UN, and there isn't a damn thing the dim-retard House can do about it. Thank you Harry Reid. The 2019 Senate will vote to confirm who ever it is that Trump nominates to be the new AG, and there isn't a damn thing the dim-retard House can do about it. Thank you Harry Reid. But getting approval for funding for the wall still requires 60 votes in the Senate, and every educated American citizen knows that such a vote requires 60 votes in the Senate.

Once again you disingenuously misrepresent what was said. What was said is: the 2019 Senate will vote to confirm who ever it is that Trump chooses to replace RBG, and there ain't a damn thing the dim-retard House can do about it. Thank you Harry Reid. The 2019 Senate will vote to confirm who ever it is that Trump nominates to be Ambassador to the UN, and there isn't a damn thing the dim-retard House can do about it. Thank you Harry Reid. The 2019 Senate will vote to confirm who ever it is that Trump nominates to be the new AG, and there isn't a damn thing the dim-retard House can do about it. Thank you Harry Reid. But getting approval for funding for the wall still requires 60 votes in the Senate, and every educated American citizen knows that such a vote requires 60 votes in the Senate.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Trump will be lucky to get 53. The wall is stupid

Trump will be lucky to get 53. The wall is stupid Originally Posted by themystic

Then why the fuck did Odumbo build a wall around his rental house in D.C.? A wall is working in Israel. A wall will work in the U.S.

Kudos to WTF for using Cato Institute analysis to support his position, even if it was regurgitated by the Washington Post.

Just a guess, but the reason in the differences between IB's source and WTF's source may be that the Heritage Foundation assumed illegals use benefits at close to the same levels as citizens and took into account the cost of educating U.S. citizens who are children of illegals. Cato didn't look at illegal immigrants per se, but rather poor non-citizens. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between the picture you get from reading the two articles.

IB, before taking a look at that I was sure illegal immigrants were big net contributors, in terms of taxation versus benefits. I'm not so sure now. Originally Posted by Tiny

IB 's article takes in the cost of amnesty. Which in fact would cost much more because they would then be able to collect the SS paid in.

I believe Cato does not call for that. They call for more legal immigration without amnesty.

I am a Libertarian there for pro Cato